Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

Add John Cox under Republican party

Cox ran a nationwide campaign, in more states than Gravel or Keyes and was in nationwide debates. Under wikipedia's non biased POV, he needs to be listed. Casey14 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

John Cox? How come I've nevered heard of him? GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're not actually following the presidential campaign close enough. He was the first Republican to announce his presidency. He ran a nationwide campaign and was in national debates. He needs to be included or this page and wikipedia will be showing their bias. Casey14 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will someone add Cox? I do not know how to create the boxes for candidates, and to be non-biased he needs to be added! Casey14 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to run a purposefully dis-informational website on the nominated political candidates. In late 2007 I updated every single one of the top 20 candidates with links to votesmart and another website with position listings based on past votes but they were promptly removed. I complained about this and also pointed out the listing for Republican candidates was incorrect (missing some and had some who were no longer in the race) but wikipedia refused to update the article. Finally, I now see they do not list the liberterian candidate on this page about the election. I believe the staff of wikipedia needs to focus on editorial correctness. At this time I believe the information they display is based on two things: 1st and foremost) bias of editor(s) for an article. This is clear in the political section as directly false or totally omitted position statements were made on several candidate's pages. 2nd) possible popularity. This is bad as facts cannot be changed by overwhelming opinion. Wrong facts are still wrong facts and really have no place in an encyclopedia. Timjowers (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Top of article

With the understanding: The top of this article is preserverd for the Election winner & runners-up? I've reverted the recent multiple changes by editor Will. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't figure out where to put this, but footnote 71 has a typo, the lady's last name is Edwards with an S. thanks. 65.173.141.56 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Will someone please remove Stephen Colbert from the Dem/GOP listings? He was not a major candidate!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.171.229 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Although I'm sure he was beating Gravel... Paragon12321 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who didn't beat Gravel? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed before, he should be removed. -- Macduff (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he doesn't belong on the Dem/GOP listings, but I believe there should be some mention of him, if only a miniscule one, somewhere on the page, considering he has his own campaign article and was met with immense public support prior to withdrawing -- Myspace69 (talk)

Alan Keyes?

Has Alan Keyes actually dropped out? The page merely says he's switched parties to the Constitution party. It is possible to run for the nomination of two parties concurrently -- has he actually made a statement saying that he's dropped out? Ramorum (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, he has not made an official announcement or released an official statement. But his campaign has stated that he is leaving the GOP. He himself will make a statement about it on April 15. And it has been reported in various places that he will be leaving. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyes, as a presidential candidate, is currently in limbo. After having failed to gain the Constitution Party's presidential nomination (and chosen not to support that party's presidential nominee), he considering running as an independant. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong order of languages

At least finnish (suomi) is at wrong place. -82.128.207.76 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain public financing controversy

Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Youtube is clearly a reliable source... Beware of this editor. He has recently been blocked from the 9/11 talk page for hijacking it. Take everything he/she says with a heavy dose of salt. --Tarage (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is unreliable about this video documentary? Are you willing to say the complaint has not been filed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source. One can only pray the wikipedia deities will deem it reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

So, what needs to be done to remove that cleanup tag? Yahoo is linking to this article and the cleanup tag makes it look sloppy. What's wrong with the article? --JaGa (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) added that tag on April 4, replacing a 'verylong' tag. I put a comment in his/her Talk page, referring here. Also, I renamed this section "Cleanup tag", was "Yahoo link". -Colfer2 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, do we need the warning that This article or section contains information about an upcoming or ongoing election in the United States? That box was removed last fall, after discussion on this page, appropriately titled "Someone thinks we are all imbeciles". But it seems to have snuck back in through the infobox, which I didn't notice until now. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be all for taking them both out, especially if it's already been discussed. Looks like Diligent Terrier is on a wikibreak, though. Should we wait, or just take them out if no one objects here? --JaGa (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If nobody explains what is the wrong with the article, I say take out both tags at the top. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Both tags have been re-added. They are necessary at this point. Please do not remove them until the issues are addressed.

The cleanup tag is necessary here, and should not be removed just because "yahoo is linking to the article". The article organization is absolutely atrocious, there are too many sections, subsections, subsubsections. There candidates' listing is a horrible collection of images combined with text listings, and random delegate totals. The lead section is too short. Some sections have way too much text, while others have too little. The whole article just needs a complete overhaul here.

The 'upcoming' tag is standard wiki practice for events that are changing. It should not be removed. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You make good points, but I wish you wouldn't reverse it based on your own opinion. We had consensus to take the tags out, and we shouldn't put them back until we have consensus to do that. Could some other people weigh in? --JaGa (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The organization is OK. After June or so, most it can be moved to the Primaries pages for each party. Other issues:

• A big problem in the design look is the use of 'CENTER' tags around the tables. Wide screens have made that tag problematic. So I am removing the center tags. It's easy enough to revert if consensus says to.
• Pictures of withdrawn candidates are unnecessary in an article this long and complex. A simple list would be a big improvement. The pics are on their own bio articles anyway.

-Colfer2 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an actual argument for keeping the "this article is about an upcoming election" banner, not just claims that this ridiculous notice is "standard". What does it add to the article to make up for looking like a bad joke? If such arguments have been presented elsewhere, feel free just to point me there (I don't see anything on Template talk:Infobox Election). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree the title of the article speaks for itself. Both tags should be removed. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the cleanup tag is still required because, even with 'centering' the images, the article as a whole still looks absolutely atrocious. There's just no comprehensive sense to any of the organization, and it doesn't tell a story of the election from its beginnings through the present day, not to mention that it's laced with all sorts of POV. The 'upcoming event' tag is also strongly needed, not only because it's standard practice, but also just a good idea and common sense in this case. This event is a hot button item with a lot of people, and is and will be edited by a lot of people until after november. It is very important to point this out to non-wikipedian users that might view the page, particularly that this page has information that will change rapidly, and that it is a non-authoritative source that may be 'edited by anyone'.

To help cleanup the article, the first thing I would propose is to eliminate the photos of candidates. I don't think it's needed, and would instead favor a simple table listing all candidates and all parties. Allowing some of the more major candidates of the major parties to have photos, while some of the less obscure candidates and candidates that have quit to not have photos, is actually a violation of WP:NPOV, as it emphasizes some over others. It also just looks very sloppy and unprofessional. The images also make the article look more like an advertisement than an actual informative encyclopedia article. All the candidates should simply be listed in a table, and if people want to know what they look like, they can click on their article. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I un-centered the tables, not centered the images. You make some good points though. Also I wasn't suggesting removing photos of obscure candidates, just the withdrawn candidates. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

Somebody mentioned it earlier. There's way too many images at this article. No offense to the 'third party candidates' but they shouldn't have images; just their names will do. Furthermore, all withdrawn candidates should have their images removed; keeping their names only. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. We can keep the pertinent info without cluttering the page. If someone wants to see the images, they can click on the candidates' article links.--JayJasper (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove the images, seeing how someone made the bold move of removing the withdrawn candidates without (thus far) causing a stir. We'll see how it plays out, but I think it was a long overdue move.--JayJasper (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, that looks much neater. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive

As mentioned earlier, this page is getting massive (77 threads as of this one). Isn't it about time to do some archiving?--JayJasper (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, archive away. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried archiving it. But for some reason, my paste, won't work (I can't transfer the old postings to the new Archive page). GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's anybody out there, whose paste is working, would you please archive this talk page? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request granted. All threads before April 4 are now archived. —Kurykh 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kurykh. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. This is much better!--JayJasper (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Elections are historical

This article should not be a running tally of present candidates. Election articles in Wikipedia are historical and should contain ALL candidates, even the ones who dropped out or lost or what ever. Look at United States presidential election, 2004: Should every candidate except George W. Bush be removed because only he won? This is a historical article which has a present & future component. —Markles

Elections are not over!

What I am waiting for is for indictments to come down against Barack Obama for his lifelong and Presidential campaign dealings, which would disqualify him from the race.

If such happens, then the people on the Republican side, like Huckabee and Romney, also, deserve another shot at the race.

Wikipedia taking these people's names off of their list and removing links, political, and campaign information about these men was, in my opinion, premature.

Any comments?

(I am planing to amend the "United States presidential election, 2008" page. If such amendment is in error at least my comments will remain here in the discussion page. My complaint is that information about the other candidates was removed too soon. Especially with a possible indictment coming down on Barack Obama for campaign fraud and other violations of the law!)

Lchow (TN) (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) lchow (TN)

Yeah I've a comment. What candidates information have we deleted from this article, that you're concerned about? Also, (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting this article is somehow Pro-John McCain & Pro-Barack Obama. The article is actually NPOV (i.e. apolitical). Also, I've never heard anything about an impending Obama indictment. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Finance

I think clinton is the only on in debt..any sources of net finance situation of all campagnes?. Rodrigue (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Primaries

First paragraph of that section it says Obama has won an overwhelming majority of the popular vote. This is simply untrue. Its biased towards Obama. As of right now the popular vote tallies are disputed depending of if you include Florida and Michigan. Regardless CNN puts Obama's lead at 700,000 a slim majority, not overwhelming.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonia (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree; in fact, I was just going to say that here but I realized that you did. It makes it seem as though Obama would have won if there were winner-take-all primaries, but in fact Clinton would have won long ago if they were winner-take-all. Total bias, and it's just our luck that the page is protected. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Waa, waa. It's only semi-protected, so I fixed it for you lazy crybabies. ;) I kid I kid! -Colfer2 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These are sensitive times for this article, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

South Carolina a Swing State?

Really? 24.33.149.118 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one poll, all the major sources have it listed as a non-swing state. See [1] [2]; not listed at [3]. It is original research to conclude it is. Please note that polls will regularly produce results that are several points off. Again, please do not violate policy by including original research. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count

Does someone want to update the delegate chart with the latest numbers decided on after the rules committee today? The new magic number is now 2,118; Obama has 2,050 and I forgot Clinton's amount. There was just a picture on CNN of the numbers, but they didn't update their website yet. Timmeh! 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually its 2117.5, and after Al Wynn resigns tomorrow it will be 2,117.0

Sorry, I was pulling those numbers from memory. Anyway, thanks to whoever updated them. Timmeh! 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinton ending campaign?

There's rumblings, that Clinton will be having her post-primaries speech in New York (tommorow), thus creating the impression that she's ending her bid for the Dems presidential nomination. Is this just a rumour or factual? Should we add this to the article? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Publicly, they are still saying they will be calling the superdelegates starting Wednesday. At the same time, MSNBC is reporting that members of the advance team are being cut loose and the national co-chairs have been told it's over. I don't think any of this is worthy of the article yet (especially when we will have more information tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case...

Please people, do not add McCain & Obama to the top of the article. The places are reserved for the person who wins the presidential election, and the person who's the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Past elections that have split significantly three ways feature all three contenders up at top, and if an independent or third-party candidates makes a significant showing, the article can always be edited to reflect it. This is a dynamic media and it should reflect the reality of the moment, and right now the reality is that Obama and McCain are the two big players in this election. --Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say "nominee 1" and "nominee 2", not "winner" and "runner-up". -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct. The left slot is for the election winner, the right slot is for the election runner up. A third (or fourth) candidate (particulary if the win any electoral votes) can be added underneath. Why can't ya'll be patient & wait until November 4, 2008? For all we know, Bob Barr could win the election & Ralph Nader be the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the syntax of the template. It uses "nominee 1" and "nominee2", not "winner" and "runner-up". I just don't see where the idea that it has to wait until after the election comes from. -Rrius (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, have it your (plural) way. I've given up trying. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean my question in a snarky or rhetorical way; I'm just asking where the notion comes from. I know New Zealand general election, 2008 has had its PM candidates in the same infobox template for ages, and that election is also likely to be in autumn. -Rrius (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) The previous United States presidential election articles, use their top spots for the Election Results. 2) Obama & McCain aren't their respective parties presidential nominees, yet. 3) There's other parties, in this election & thus it's crystal balling to have the Democrats & Republicans presumptive nominees at the top of the article. Trust me, you're going to have partison editors out there, demanding their candidate be at the top-left of the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I don't think the present template was in place before this election year. 2) They will almost undoubtedly be the nominee, they're presumptive. 3) The other parties will likely get less than 10% of the vote combined, they are not one of the two major parties. Just wanted to get my two cents in. =) Timmeh! 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says that the Libertarian Party is not a major party? That's simply not true. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as is, but if it becomes a problem, we should remove the pictures. -Rrius (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. PS- Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk)

Bob Barr

As you can see the Article Lists Barack Obama, and John McCain as the two 'major' Candidates in the infobox, to play it safe being that Bob Barr has 9% already in National Polls, should we not add him to the Box? I mean hes outdoing Ralph Nader three to one, polls place nader only with 3% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we hold off because Barr just won the the Libertarian nomination and it is still rather early in the process (therefore, the polling is not totally reliable). -Rrius (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which polls are you referring to? Can you link them? Timmeh! 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical. Rasmussen has them at 6% and 4% respectively: [4], and people tend to overstate how much they will vote for third party candidates. I say they both remain out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would make some sense to use a neutral standard such as the 15% cutoff used by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I know it is arbitrary, but so too would any other solution short of highlighting everyone on who made his or her way on to any state's ballot. -Rrius (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be no candidates at the top of the Article, until November 4, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why that's the case, if the tags used are nominee 1 and nominee 2 (as opposed to winner and runner-up, as used in past elections) and no other candidates have reached 10% in the national polls (which, even if they had, tend to overstate support--case in point: in a Gallup poll before the 1992 election, Ross Perot registered 28% and ended up getting less than 20% of the vote)? What's your logic? I really don't understand why it makes sense to wait for 4 November 2007 to do anything. I'm with Rrius; I'm adding the pictures, and unless you can provide me with a rationale for omitting them, they should stay up. I really hope this isn't just your getting upset because your candidate isn't up there... Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the Democratic & Republican presumptive presidential nominees in the TopInfobox gives the 'frist glance impression' that they're the top-2 finishers in the Election (which is crystal balling). PS- Guaranteed, McCain-leaning editors will switch his (McCain) image to the left side & Obama-leaning editors will switch them back; etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but let's face it--it's pretty unlikely any third party candidate will register more than 5% of the vote, and even that is a stretch. It happens once in blue moon, and it likely won't happen in this election. Whether McCain or Obama supporters reverse the placement of the images or not is irrelevant; the article should still convey graphically who the two major-party candidates are.

Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether the candidates should be represented in images; the question is whether those images should be in the infobox. Whether there are edit wars over placement is an issue whether you think it's relevant or not. Edit wars destabilize the article distract editors from making meaningful edits. Many edit wars lead to page protection, which means editors cannot make edits. Anyway, the discussion is now being dealt with below. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska and South Carolina

The Evil Spartan reverted blurbs on Nebraska and South Carolina. In doing so, he referred us to a previous edit summary of his and the opinion poll article. I presume the edit summary he is referring to is the one that said that according to Fox News and Rassmussen South Carolina is safe Republican. He also made the bald assertion that Nebraska is safe. The South Carolina edit was based on a single poll from late February, so I agree that it is not reliable.

Nebraska, however, is. The blurb is based on a poll released Sunday by a reputable polling firm. Moreover, I heard the possibility of Obama picking off one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes twice during Tuesday night's election coverage. The fact that another Wikipedia does not yet reflect that poll is not a reason to revert the change on this one. What may be contributing to the confusion is that each of its three congressional districts to the winner of the districts' popular vote totals and the remaining two votes are awarded to the winner of the state-wide vote. It is therefore quite possible to be far behind statewide, but pick off a district elector. -Rrius (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one poll, all the major sources have it listed as a non-swing state. See [5] [6]; not listed at [7]. It is original research to conclude it is. Please note that polls will regularly produce results that are several points off. Again, please do not violate policy by including original research.

As for Nebraska, all recent polls show it's not close. However, if it's included under the congressional district argument, then we ought to include Maine as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include Maine. The poll cited is the very same Survey USA poll cited in the other sources. The Congressional district issue is important because there are various scenarios where who wins those two districts could be the difference between a McCain win, an Obama win, or a tie. Your argument that this is somehow POV is nonsense because the statement is verified by reliable source. No where in the text added does it say the whole of Nebraska is close. It says two are and three aren't. -Rrius (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking about South Carolina, and I was claiming it was Original Research, not that it was biased. I have added Maine. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I like your solution. Second, I meant to write "OR", not "POV" (I guess I'm just used to POV fights). Third, I never reverted your SC edit—I explicitly said I agreed—so I am confused as to why you would bring it up, especially without stating that you were talking about SC. -Rrius (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary led me to believe you were reinserting the whole material. While I usually check the edits, popups is going slowly, and apparently I erred badly and didn't check the diff. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. Projected nominee

I noticed that CNN is currently listing Obama as the Democratic Projected nominee rather than the Presumptive nominee[8]. I am guessing this is because Clinton has not dropped out and Obama's absolute majority is backed up by superdelegates, but I am not certain. If anyone knows for sure, is there a difference in the two titles and do you think that should be noted in this article? Seen0288 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It could also be uncertainty about whether the Florida and Michigan delegations will end up with full votes. If so, I would expect to see them use "presumptive" after passing 2210 delegates. -Rrius (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even worst, these 2 candidates (Obama & McCain, who've yet to actually get their respective parties presidential nominations), had their images posted at the top of this article. Why can't people wait until the Election Results in November? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

nomination

The superdelegate tally right now is really unofficial, and the count even varies by source, and its likely several will not vote officially as piblicly suggested, not to mention florida/michigan...nothing has really changed, obama is no more likely the nominee than a week a ago, he just got some more delegates.Rodrigue (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama has a majority (super & pledged combined) of the delegates for the Dems presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- Unless something completely off the wall happens? Obama will be nominted for President, at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (in August). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is thought that he is not nominee until the super delegates have voted. The current situation is premature even though it is the most likely outcome.--Caranorn (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the Networks in the USA, are calling him the presumptive nominee (note: not the nominee). Best to go with that (if & until things suddenly change). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is why it says "presumptive" under his name. Even under the .02% chance Obama isn't nominated, we can change it. The major networks are all calling this - I believe it is proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Given McCain's age, I suppose it's also possible for him to have a heart attack and croak before August. Granted, that's still very unlikely, but it **could** happen. This is why we use the word, "presumptive". Dr. Cash (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's another 2-3 months, until the Democrats & Republicans nominate their respective presidential & vice presidential candidates. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidates in the Infobox

The candidates have been removed from the infobox again. I am now of the opinion that GoodDay and the new editor, Fifty7, are right. In the past the candidates have been left off until there is a general election winner. In addition to edit wars between those who want the candidates and those who do not, there will be edit wars over whose candidate goes on the left (which is where the winner goes after the election) and which minor parties should be included. Frankly, any method of choosing could be validly accused of being POV. The simplest answer is to do what has been done before: add the names at the end of the election. -Rrius (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Until November 4th, then. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I understand. I was under the impression that we were waiting for the primaries to be over to add the faces in. Luckily, I wasn't involved in the edit war -- I edited it once and opted to discuss the matter here, so no war for me. =) -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's likely gonna be quite a struggle to keep those images off, when the Republican & Democratcs nominate their respective candidates. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone could put an appropriate comment in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so far we've avoided war; it's been more like a border skirmish. The only time I restored the pictures, I did it to restore a bunch of intermediate edits. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I completely disagree with this line of reasoning. It is no more a violation of the NPOV guidelines to put these images up than it is to decide, in previous elections, who was a "major" candidate (you will notice Ross Perot in some years, despite not getting any electoral votes). The question should come down to this: is the media calling them a major candidate? Are the major websites, television stations, and newspapers giving them credit for being major? I am not talking in the sense of "they have some articles about them" - I'm talking about, is the media giving them any realistic chance of winning in November? Are they on the electoral maps that are printed? Are they even on the ballot in every state? I strongly suggest we hold a poll and an RFC on this issue, as it will not be resolved, and will be constantly changed from here to early November unless we settle it permanently. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What's to settle? We simply wait until the Presidential Election results. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the Reform, Libertarian, Green, and Communist candidates be in the infobox? Why limit the list to "major-party" candidates? At what point is a candidate as important as Perot, who is in the 1992 infobox? What is your answer for when someone complains that McCain is in the "loser" slot? -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Goodday - that's not an argument, 2) Rrius - I believe this is reductio ad absurdium. In fact, you just argued my point for me, unless you are willing to go remove the Perot-Republican-Democrat candidate images from previous elections, or add the communist ones. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Infobox having only the presidnetial candidates who receive Electoral Votes. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is, interestingly, not the way consensus has established it in the past. So you'd like to change consensus then? Unless you are going to remove Perot from 1992, and add Jonathon Edwards to 2000, then you have no ground to make your argument. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually want Perot removed from United States presidential election, 1992; Who's Jonathan Edwards? GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not reductio ad absurdium; these issues are going to come up. We have already had Bob Barr added. What I am trying to do is to get to the central issue, and you didn't answer any of the questions. As for 1992, I don't believe I am making your point. That article was written long after it happened, and the pictures on the other articles were not put up until after the election. During the 2000 election campaign, reasonable cases could have made that Nader, and to a lesser degree Buchanan, should have been included on the list.

The big problem here is that we will have to deal with an ongoing edit war from August (at the latest) to November. I guess I'll just sit back and let the rest of you deal with it; I'm not going to revert Spartan's edits on this or anyone else's. -21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Guranteed Spartan. McCain leaning editors will switch the image around & Obama leaning editors will switch them back. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think McCain's image should be first, simply because he's the nominee of the incumbent party, and that's the rule used in articles about other upcoming elections (Next Australian federal election, Next United Kingdom general election). And I'm an Obama supporter. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep images off until the general election debates, then add all those who qualify for them. There's just something that feels wrong about just putting the Dem and GOP presumptive nominees there, assuming the candidates from the two major parties are inherently entitled to either mantle of winner or runner-up. With all that has gone on, and the incredible amount of enthusiasm and coverage about this election, it isn't unreasonable to assume a "third party" nominee could garner substantive popular vote support or a handful of electoral votes. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It all comes back to my original argument. Don't add images to the TopInfobox until after the presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that. Agreed with GoodDay. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To the Pollsters below: Please check over the other US presidential election articles: United States presidential election, 2004, United States presidential election, 2000 etc & reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put the Democratic Party and the Republican Party Candidates right now and wait after the elections if the third party candidates like Bob Barr get at least one or two electoral votes then we should that candidate/s in the infobox Agree? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Discussion is above.

Include images from two major parties as well as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader

1. I am for either this or no pictures until after the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. A good standard is to include any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states to potentially win. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree with No. 1 to do otherwise would be biased. Uwmad (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates from two major parties now

1. Good idea. All these candidates who are from parties which have qualified for major funding and have qualified for debates in the previous decade. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, I think it's OK to do so now. conman33 (. . .talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, there's no reason not to. What we do here will likely set the precedent for future presidential elections since this template was not in use during the previous elections. It's also worth noting that this particular template (Template:Infobox Election) was not yet in existence until 2007 so it obviously could not have been used in the 2004 and 2000 election pages. Timmeh! 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I think this is the best option as well, although I'd also be happy with the choice below (and if a third party candidate happens to reach Ross Perot/George Wallace style support, I think that's the option we should go for). Look at the articles for upcoming elections in other countries (Next Australian federal election, New Zealand general election, 2008, Next United Kingdom general election). It's not crystal balling, these two candidates will be the major candidates for the 2008 Election (barring some major turn of events), and again, the three other articles I've linked include candidates who could easily be ousted by the time the election comes around (I seriously doubt Brendan Nelson, the Australian opposition leader, is going to last more than a couple more months). In terms of the order of the candidates, I think John McCain should be first, simply because he is the incumbent party's nominee, which is the format used in other articles about elections that haven't happened yet. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree with the above. They're the two most important candidates in the election, at least at the moment. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Important in what context? Apparently 18 million voters are "non-important". AP poll - Nader does not tip election. Not to mention Barr and the Green Party. Uwmad (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Agree with No. 4. --Jedravent (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
7. This should be the course of action until something major changes (Barr or Nader gets invited to major debates, Clinton declares as an independent, something unexpected like that). --Kudzu1 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: The Libertarian Party IS a major party and therefore, those who are for this should support Bob Barr being included. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates who qualify for major debates

1. Doable, though my second choice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm in favor of this. That means McCain and Obama now, since it's inconceivable they won't be included. --Kudzu1 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This is my preferred idea. This or a set plan where they poll above 15% or could win at least one electoral vote. Perot polled above 15% and Wallace won some electoral votes. But debates works because they generally have a 10-15% threshold in polling. I wish the third parties were more significant, but the reality is they aren't and shouldn't be crowding up the page.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Include no images now

1. Wait until after the 2008 Presidential election (see the other US presidential election articles ,1788 to 2004). GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Well, the articles from 1788-2000 were written after the elections took place, and taking a look at the revision history for the 2004 article, the infobox didn't even exist back then (and the 2004 article wasn't exacty featured artice status back then either) [9]. It's hardly a precedent. Moreso, if you look at the edits from around September/October, there is a table a the top of the article which DOES list George Bush as the republican nominee and John Kerry as the democratic nominee (plus various other third party candidates below) [10]. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: How the other articles did it, isn't important. Their end result is. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm for either this or Obama/McCain/Barr/Nader. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I like this or just the two main parties as a second alternative. Until we get closer to November its unclear how much of an impact the third parties and independents will have. Seen0288 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
4. For reasons stated in prior discussion. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Nothing's decided yet, also inclusion of only two presumtive candidates would be in violation of NPOV, not to mention the problems of who goes in which slot...--Caranorn (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Ditto the comments of GoodDay and Caranorn. It is not only a violation of WP:NPOV but WP:FUTURE as well to feature only the two presumptive candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
7. This is the best compromise and is my second choice. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Unless Barr, Nader, and McKinney are included, I see no reason to include Obama and McCain. To do otherwise would show bias.Uwmad (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added info on candidates' "origins and age"

I didn't see this mentioned in the first few sections ("Characteristics") and I think it's important to note McCain/Obama's ages and birthplaces. It may have been in the article before and I didn't see it, but I'm blind as a bat. conman33 (. . .talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinton has dropped out

Here's a source She says she will back Obama. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, she's suspending here presidential campaign on Saturday (June 7th). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominees

I added a note to the picture of the nominees clarifying that their respective nominations are presumptive until formalized by the national conventions in August and September Nevermore27 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two senators

Article should note that, based on the presumptive nominees, this will be the first presidential election where two serving senators are the principal nominees. 198.74.13.100 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait, until their respective parties nominate them. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They're the nominees, presumptive or not its simple mathematical fact, keep it as "will be" as opposed to "is", but, as the article and infobox now openly state, these are going to be the nominees.134.226.1.194 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying "will represent the two major parties" until September, when we can change it to "nominee", should work. -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tone consideration - use of 'barred'

this might be a little nit-picky, but in the sentence: "The incumbent President, George W. Bush, ... is barred from running again due to term limits..." 'barred' connotates denial of action by an opposing force, as in, "Bush tried to run again, but the law stopped him." More neutral phrasing wouldn't hurt - "is prevented from running again," or "is not elligable to run again," et cetera. - matt lohkamp 1:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Barred" is pretty standard when talking about the effect a term limit. I agree that the word implies an opposing force; there is one here: the term limits imposed by the 22nd amendment. I do not agree that it implies someone tried to run. It is no different in that respect from "prevented from" as you suggest, or even your other suggestion of "not eligible". I don't think anyone will be misled by the text as it is. -Rrius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox format suggestion - some help?

I tried to make an infobox for this article that included all of the six candidates (two major, four significant minor), but I had a lot of trouble. Basically, what I wanted to do was to list the major candidates (those with at least 15% support) in alphabetical order, then separately (below the major candidates) list the minor candidates (those from one of the significant third parties - the ones with voter registration over 100,000 - and significant independents - any with at least 2% support nationally) in alphabetical order. "Major Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of John McCain and Barack Obama with a reference to the criteria for major candidacy, and "Minor Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and the Green Party logo (they have not yet determined their candidate) with a reference to the criteria for minor candidacy. Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to separate the two major candidates and the four minor. I kept ending up with Chuck Baldwin's head next to Barack Obama's. I eventually gave up and decided to label each candidate as either major or minor, with major candidates' status bolded. I'm going to show what I have here, but if anyone can help design my original idea for the infobox, it would greatly be appreciated.

IMHO, it's something to consider in November. PS- I'd suggest using the electoral votes as the bar for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting until November would defeat the purpose, in this case. I think this is the infobox that should be used, just with a row of two (McCain/Obama) followed by a row of four (Baldwin/Barr/Nader/Green Nominee), unless one of the four should meet the official general election debates' standard of major candidacy sometime between now and Election Day. I just don't know how to separate it into a row of two and a row of four, only two rows of three. -- Fifty7 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, the only thing I prefer in the Infobox (until November) is the USA electoral map. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I agreed with that. But since that's not what is going to happen, I figure we should do our best to reflect the reality of the situation rather than contribute to the willful ignorance of minor candidacies to the benefit of the two major parties in what amounts to an article with a technically non-neutral point of view:. I want to note, I am not a supporter of one of the third party candidates, I'm actually a fervent Obama supporter. I just think that the article should be accurate, and to be accurate, it should label the major candidates and any minor candidates that have any kind of impact on the national election. The Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are recognized as the three Third Parties in America, and Nader is a prominent figure who has enough support to merit mention without being nominated by one of the minor three. While they are certainly of lesser status than the Democratic and Republican presumptive nominees, there is historic and contemporary precedent for a third candidate to break through into that 'major candidacy' status, and the four minor candidates are certainly of a higher status than, say, the Socialist Party USA's nominee. So I think we should reflect that.

I'm just trying to figure out how to do it in rows of two then four. x_x Fifty7 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just one voice in all of this. Do as you see fit; it doesn't hurt to experiment. I'll be watching, to see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't dare try to change this without input from others who have been working on the article. You wouldn't happen to know how to structure the info box in the way I'm trying, would you? I figure it would look much more reasonable if it visibly separated "Major Candidates" and "Minor Candidates". Fifty7 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to ask somebody else. I don't know how to make/fix/change Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hold on a minute, I already made it its on the pageAndrew L. Lessig III 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I didn't think it was sufficient. Fifty7 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The info box looks good to me. The only thing I noticed is that the candidates' pictures are sized differently causing the lines below to not be in line with one another. I do not know too much about editing info boxes and images, but if possible resizing the pictures would make it look a lot cleaner IMO. Seen0288 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's the result of resizing. I could externally edit all the pictures and upload them specifically for this infobox though. Are there any objections to using this in the article? Remember that there's no precedent for pre-election use of a US Presidential Election Infobox, so this kind of inclusion would be a positive thing to do. Fifty7 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do question the need to label them "major" and "minor" or any such. It made sense with two infoboxes because we needed to explain why there was all of a sudden a whole other group of candidates. By putting them in one box, I think we can leave it to the article to explain to people who don't already know that the Democrats and Republicans are the major parties.

Two motivations for the labeling - there's specific criteria involved, and so that there isn't any controversy or presumed non-neutral motivation over the notion of putting Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee "in the same league" as Obama and McCain. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we let the fact that they are not Democrats or Republicans (and the body of the article) make that point? At the very least can we not call them "third parties" as is done for the Lib Dems on UK general election pages? -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, are we leaving the infobox on this page or can we either delete it or move it to a sandbox? I volunteer to use mine. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, it'll preserve it without taking up room here. I'm about to upload the resized pictures now, I'll note here when the infobox is ready to be moved to both the article (which I'll do) and your sandbox. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's updated. Moving to the article now. Feel free to remove from here.

I think it's great that you all reached a compromise like this. I think it looks great right now with the six candidates up there. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What are your criteria for minor/major party? The Libertarian Party IS a major party. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Greens

If McCain wasn't the presumptive nominee until he had 1191 delegates and Obama wasn't until he had 2118 (or 2117 or 2210) delegates, why is McKinney the presumptive nominee before she reaches 419? According to the article, which was updated today, she has 271. I'm going to remover her. -Rrius (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another editor came to me with something saying she was 'likely', and I figured given that the only other candidate with triple-digit delegates was Nader, who isn't running for the nomination anyway, that I'd put it up. But you're right. Fifty7 (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_9216109 - Second link, this time a news publication, referring to her as the presumptive nominee. Going to add her back in provisionally, until we can get confirmation, as the math is just about entirely on her side anyway. Fifty7 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing a Google News search, I see a lot of "leading candidate" and "frontrunner" articles. More importantly, the standard that has been used here and in the bulk of the media for other parties is the point when a person has the delegates. When Barack Obama made it virtually impossible for Hillary to meet the magic number, he was still just the frontrunner. I have serious objections to using this one article over the bulk of media reporting and logic. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney hasn't won yet, so her image shouldn't be up there.69.18.226.204 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who's calling her the presumptive nominee, she hasn't won enough delegates yet and therefore hasn't won the nomination. She should be removed until she gets the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Timmeh! 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've a better idea. Remove all candidates & wait until after the election. In the meantime, ya'll are correct McKinney doesn't have the majority of Green delegates 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea. It would stop all this bickering over which candidates should be in the infobox. We don't need any candidates there until after the election. Timmeh! 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Timmeh put it exactly right. This article has used "presumptive" to mean the person has enough delegates to be nominated at the party convention, regardless of whether the candidate is a Republican, Democrat, or Green. You can find all the news sources using the word "presumptive" you want. It does not make it true in the way that word has traditionally been used in presidential elections or the way that the bulk of the news sources use it. We should not call anyone the presumptive nominee of any party until it is mathematically impossible for anyone else to win without delegates changing their minds. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I did another google search, this time using the words "cynthia", "mckinney", and "presumptive". There were three hits; the only one that calls her that is the Times-Standard interview. The paper is a relatively small one, and the article is from 10 May, making the claim even more ridiculous. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to handle the issue at hand alone (that of the Greens): it is not appropriate to add a candidate that has not been called the presumptive nominee except by a small newspaper, and who has not gotten the magic number. Anymore than it seemed obvious that Obama was the nominee, and we didn't add him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All candidates' pictures

Why do we have the minor candidates included on the side box? Shouldn't we go back and update the 2004 election page and 2000 page to make it suitable for them all? I mean, come on. If Barr has less than 10% I don't think he has any chance in winning. All their faces on the page makes this article look like it's full of wayyyy too much information. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk and I give TOTAL credit to the person responsible for taking the time to make such a side info box for the article, I'm just voicing my opinion in saying that this article looks way too crowded with all other candidates besides McCain and Obama. If anything, I think Nader deserves to be in the 2000 election info box because there was the controversy surrounding how he supposedly "stole" votes from Gore in Florida. I see Perot is in the 1992 election box. Again, please don't think I'm being rude, I'm just voicing what I think should be done. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ADDING TO MY OWN COMMENT: I saw that the 1968 election has Wallace included in the info box because he actually won electoral votes and was a big part in how the electoral college was tallied, and in 1992's election Perot got a huge amount of the popular vote. I'm just saying the few million that Barr, McKinney, and etc. will gather doesn't look like it will be as huge as Wallace and Perot's efforts. I give them lots of respect for running, but I'm just saying the info box shouldn't be as big as it is right now. Am I crazy for thinking this or are there others with me? If not, I'll just shut up : ) conman33 (. . .talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing elections; those others are over. When this one is done there will be a strong sentiment to drop it down to the two bigs. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to add the minor party candidates in, looking at the recent poll above. This looks like POV-pushing to me. Harro5 07:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If we are going to add all the candidates, then why not the Socialist, Communist, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus so I reverted so this can be discussed. There's really no reason to add the minor party candidates. If we added them, we'd have to go back to the previous year's elections and add them. Timmeh! 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refer back to the above section that discussed this new infobox at length. The only reason that ONLY Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee were added was because they met specific criteria. Also, please stop referencing other US Presidential Election articles, as (again) was said in the above section, this is the first time an article was of decent quality/had an infobox before the election took place. There is no precedent in place. There are not two tiers to the candidates ('Democratic/Republican' and 'not') but rather three (Major (Democratic/Republican), Minor (Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Nader), and fringe (those that obviously would not be included, such as the candidate from Socialist Party USA or the American Nazi candidate). As was said above again, the only thing this has to do with POV is eliminating any chance of a technical non-neutral point of view by including only the major candidates. We attempted to visually separate the major and minor candidates, but could not make a row of two then a row of four in the infobox, so labeling is the next best thing. If there is a consensus that can debunk the reasons behind this, then it should be removed. Until then, it should stay, as there is nothing controversial or factually dishonest about it, and it is in fact neutral. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't see that discussion. I just looked at this section. Timmeh! 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It used to be MUCH more obvious because the experimental infobox used to be on the talk-page, but it's since been removed to a user's sandbox so as not to clutter the page. Fifty7 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it from the talk because the discussion was done and the experimental infobox made the real one. I figured it served no purpose anymore. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include a candidate unless they poll above 15%, have a chance of winning a congressional district, or an electoral vote. Otherwise, this is just clutter and makes them look more significant than they are.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Refer to discussion above. Fifty7 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did look at it. Thank you very much. I am introducing a new standard that consensus should consider.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The smaller party contenders should not have the right to be at the top. First of all they arent going to win, Im not trying to attack them on their third party status but they dont have a well enough NATIONAL support nor attention to be up on top. Does anyone really think that Bob Barr is going to be elected President? And if people want to put the smaller people on top then lets put everybody who is running for office up their. Somebody needs to fix this ASAP and those above who say that those runners meet criteria that is nonsence. MarkDonna (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fogive me for harping on this folks. If no candidates were added until the election (in November), we'd have less hassle over who belongs & who doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Who introduced this new infobox format and criteria? It's complete nonsense. This needs to be redone. We need to only put up the viable candidates or not put up any at all until the election. Timmeh! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And believe me. Editors will bicker over which candidate belongs on the left-side (McCain or Obama). Trust me, having no candidates (until November 4) is the best way forward. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is to include all those who will have an impact on the election, not just those who can win (by that logic, why include McCain?), and that means the nominees of the parties with voter registration of at least 100,000, widespread ballot access, and/or standing in national polls. Hell, Barr and Nader make up 8% of decided voters in national polls right now. Editing the article so that only McCain and Obama are mentioned will be considered vandalism without a strong consensus on the talk page. At the very least, read the damned talk page discussions on the issue before deciding that your opinion of it as "nonsense" is common sense. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep telling us to refer to the discussion above? There really was no consensus reached. You just went ahead and changed the infobox format to fit your personal needs. The poll above clearly shows that you are the only one who believes that the minor party candidates should be in the infobox. On the other hand, 7 people think only Obama and McCain should be included while 5 support not adding any pictures until the election. I think we need to actually reach consensus before making changes here. Timmeh! 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton??

Why was Clinton's image added to the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism, you were right to remove it. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm running too

Would my picture be at the top along with Obama, McCain and all the other crazies included for no reason whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.77.198 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, who are you? GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a troll, GoodDay. Fifty7 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone who's using hyperbole or whatever you want to call it to make a point. Those guys are a footnote. A foreigner who reads this article might think they have a chance. (189.148.77.198 (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

That person would have to be incapable of reading to think that. The point is to list those on the ballot, those who will have an impact on the outcome of the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party candidates?

Why are so many minor candidates in the box with Obama and McCain? It's not needed. Heismanhoosier (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is ridiculous to have minor candidates on the top and makes the page look laughable. It also distorts the entire page. I mean the gigantic "image not available" for the Green Party is just too much. TigerManXL (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a supposed "consensus" according to User:Fifty7, when there really was no consensus. There was a poll where the majority of people voted for either just Obama and McCain to be in the infobox or voted for nobody to be there until the election. Fifty7 just changed the infobox on his own and without consensus, and you were right to remove the third party candidates, TigerManXL. Now, we need to discuss whether to keep the major party candidates in the infobox or just remove them all until November. Timmeh! 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a fellow who's been continously claiming that the Libertarian Pary is a major party, like the Democratic & Republican parties. When did the Libs get a candidate elected President & Vice President? PS- It's true, there was no consensus to add candidates to the Infobox. There was a 7 to 7 split, for adding McCain & Obama VS adding nobody. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is not a major party. However, if it begins to gain in the polls so much that Bob Barr gets 15% in the polls or more, then I'd consider the Libertarian Party as a major party in this election. But for now, we should put up Obama and McCain and try to reach a consensus. It was actually 7 to 5 for adding the two major candidates vs. adding nobody. The sixth one for adding nobody is a second choice, and it is also mine after keeping Obama and McCain. We need to reach a consensus though, and I see no reason why we can't keep just Obama and McCain in the infobox, in alphabetical order. Timmeh! 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But a majority of editors here, don't want Bob Barr's image in the Infobox. They just want McCain & Obama. Your edit might get viewed as political PoV pushing & could be treated as vandalism. You shouldn't be forcing your wants onto the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is not getting 15% in the polls, is it? It's not even getting 5%. It's not a major party. Timmeh! 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, parties that have automatic ballot access in states are not necessary labeled "major". They are labeled "official" parties or (surprise, surprise) "parties entitled to automatic ballot access". Second, the Greens also have automatic ballot access in several states. Your measure has not received a consensus yet, so stop reverting. You have already reverted at least three times, so you are in danger of being blocked per WP:3RR.-Rrius (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any states that require a party to have elected a president in order to be considered 'major'. Most have other criteria such as obtaining 2% in a recent gubernatorial election. If everyone wants major party candidates included, then maybe the debate should be over the definition of 'major'. Thanks! Rational Renegade (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't know of any states that require a party to have obtained some arbitrary percentage of some private polling company’s research. Rational Renegade (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not too big of a person to refrain from saying "I told you so". I said we would have this debate if we put up pictures. I even said we would have to justify putting up some minor parties but not others (reductio ad absurdium, my foot). That said, we are making a dog's breakfast of this thing by talking about "major" or "minor". We either need a real criteria or none at all. I suggest somehow tying the infobox to being on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes. If we only look at this election, the Libertarians are there, the Constitution and Green parties probably will end up there, and Nader probably will, too. We could also look at contemporary parties that have met that threshold in any of the past three elections plus this one (because that is easier than keeping up with this year's ballot access news). I know that would bring in the Constitution party, and might bring in the other two.

Another suggestion is to keep the words in the infobox for everyone, but remove the images. It may have less of the psychological effect of putting minor-party candidates on the same plane as the majors, while maintaining the NPOV presentation of all candidates who may have an affect on the election.

The notion of excluding the three significant minor parties and Nader from the infobox smacks of POV to me. If these candidates are so insignificant, remove them from the article altogether. I think some people are assuming that if we put six candidates in the box before the election, they will still be there afterwards. I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. The box is serving a different purpose now than it will after 8 November 4 November. Now it is a navigation guide to the people involved in the election. Later, it will a historical summary of the significant results.

In any event, I maintain that the best thing is to remove references to candidates from the infobox altogether. This is otherwise going to be a five-month collection of edit wars. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, have no candidates in the Infobox until after November 4th (prez election). GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There will only be edit warring until the election if we leave the pictures there. They should be removed. Timmeh! 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a bad idea because it would remove a very valuable source of quick information about the candidates. We shouldn't just give up on having a thoroughly informative article just because there are conflicts over who should be included. Instead, we should try to work out this conflict. Ultimately, if we can develop some sort of criteria for inclusion, it will prevent similar conflicts in the future and might also resolve any conflicts there are over historical contests. That said, removing the pictures might reduce some of the propagandistic effect of the infobox, though it still diminishes the overall quality of the article. Theshibboleth (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. If it's possible, can we have the two major party candidates like they are now, and provide information on the other third party candidates without pictures so we don't clutter it up and make them all seem to have an equal chance of winning? Timmeh! 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, you need to turn "party_colour" off because the colour lines will be one column to the left of where they should be. It will also look strange because we will have two with pictures and one with no picture on the top line and three with no pictures on the second. It is not, as far as I can tell, possible to put all four minor party candidates on the second line. Using no pictures would work better. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "equal chance of winning". The Libertarian Party is already on enough ballots to potentially win. I don't think three or four or five images in the info box is cluttered. Why don't we just put the Great Seal there like on the US President page? Rational Renegade (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd to hold the standard at "has a chance of winning." Right now only two of the candidates do, that is obvious, but those two candidates could account for as little as 90% of the popular vote in November! In an election that could be very, very close in the popular vote, no less. If we are going to have any candidates in the infobox, then we should have all those on the ballot who will have an impact on the outcome of the election. I would much rather see no candidates in there until after the election, but if we must have candidates in there, then this is the standard we must follow. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a response to me, I was misunderstood. I mean a theoretical chance of winning 270 electoral votes. If a person is not on ballots in states representing 270, he or she cannot win. Under that metric, three candidates can win: Barr, McCain, and Obama. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like everyone agrees that we don't need any pictures there now. Am I correct in saying this? If so, someone can remove them until November. Timmeh! 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As in no images and no text, no images and text for McCain and Obama, or no images but text for all six? -Rrius (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No Images and no text. I'm pretty sure that's what you wanted right? Timmeh! 03:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's what I want, I just haven't been following closely enough to know what the current "whip count" is. Should we do a new poll? -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I read through the discussion, and it seems the only one opposed to removing all the candidates is Theshibboleth. I do not mind if the candidates are removed, but Theshibboleth does bring up a very good point in his post above. Timmeh! 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that we have information about and images of each of the candidates in the body tends to limit the importance of having the info and images in the infobox. Admittedly, the article won't be as pretty, but stability is also a virtue. Also, the fact that we will eventually have images in the infobox makes it less problematic for me. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is responsible for staying neutral, but it's also charged with assessing notoreity. This seems to be a controversial issue for editors here so I suggest we use articles on past elections as a guide. This will ultimately be a historical article and should be written with that in mind. What sort of result would cause us to decide to include an individual. Anderson received 6.6% of the vote in 1980, but his photo is not in the infobox. Perot is in the box for 1992, but not 1996. He received 18.9% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996. Elections where third party candidates won states: Wallace in 1968, Byrd in 1960, Thurman in 1948, Follete in 1924, and Roosevelt in 1912 are examples. The precedent appears to have been set to include candidates who either carry a state or receive at least 10% of the popular vote. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to include photos of candidates polling 10% or who are polling first or second in any one state. --Aranae (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the criteria could be that the third party candidate actually placed second or was placing second in polls in some states... although I'm not sure it makes sense to include segregationist candidates that only carry one state... or we could say if the candidate polls half or a third of the second place candidate's percent of voters who say they will vote for him. I believe this would include Perot and of course Taft in 1912. Theshibboleth (talk)

I propose finding a good place to have the historical discussion and then having it there. Otherwise, even more issues will get intermingled than are already getting jumbled up in this discussion. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First, if the minor-party candidates were not notable enough, they would not be mentioned in the article. Also, you are using post election practice to determine how to cover this during the election. There is no compelling reason to do so. The fact is, we don't know what will end up happening, and using polling is not going to convince enough editors to put this issue to bed. If you are going to come up with a reason to show some but not all of the notable candidates, you need one that is not arbitrary. Ten percent or carrying a state is most decidedly arbitrary. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everything in the article can possibly fit in the infobox. Only the most notable information in the article is put there to be a quick "guide" to the rest of the article. As for polling, it is not the best gauge of current public opinion, but it is the best gauge of current public opinion that we have available to us. The infobox format also includes fields for polls, which is also a compelling reason to use them. I have to agree with Aranae. His specifications for inclusion are actually based on past elections and articles, and the old specifications were based on absolutely nothing. In considering which candidates to put in the infobox, Aranae outlines it best. Furthermore, I have a proposition that hopefully everyone can agree on: If the infobox dispute is not resolved one week from today with a clear consensus, the candidates' information and pictures will be removed until the election. Timmeh! 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable (the 1-week thingy). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Polling may be the best gauge of public opinion, but a 10 percent threshold is arbitrary. Why not 5% or 15%? The issue of how to define a "minor candidate" has already lasted for several days. It should be clear that if we to make such a decision, it is necessary for that decision to be defensible. Arbitrary rationales are weak to begin with, but this one will be accused of being drawn to create a result: keeping down the third parties. As for Aranae's analysis. First, what has been done in previous election pages is not a standard for defining major or minor. Second, yes, this page will eventually have a historical perspective, but it is about an ongoing election now. Deciding that some players will, in the end, be the big vote-getters, and others not, is outside the scope of an infobox for an ongoing election. Readers can get make an informed opinion of who's winning based on their knowledge, the article text, the opinion polling page, and other related pages; they don't need the infobox for that. -Rrius (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor party v. minor candidate labels

We keep throwing around "major" and "minor". It is clear that there are two major parties and other minor parties. This status is based on historical trends and confirmed by contemporary polling. I would have thought it unnecessary to explain this, but that only shows my ability to underestimate Wikipedians.

The Republican and Democrats have won every election since 1852 (yes, 1864 was weird, but Lincoln was a Republican). Only in 1860 and 1912 were other parties truly significant. In the latter, the third party was really just a vehicle for Republican Teddy Roosevelt to challenge the Republican nominee. Republicans have also held upwards of 90% of congressional seats since at least 1860. Only rarely have state governors or legislators been anything other than Republicans or Democrats (with the exception of the nonpartisan Nebraska legislature). It is fatuous to claim that either the Libertarian Party or the Green Party is a major party because it met the single-digit popular vote threshold necessary for automatic ballot access in a few states. In Illinois for example, the Republican and Democratic parties' names are written into the statute, with certain provisions applying to other parties that qualify for automatic ballot access.

We also have this issue of calling people "major" and "minor" candidates. Using those labels before the election is speculative and POV. John McCain's support was in the low-double and single digits for significant portions of 2007. Calling him a minor candidate would have been dead wrong as he won the nomination. There are other ways of describing these people without describing them as insignificant or as non-factors, which is what the "minor candidate" label does. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Thank you for clarifying the distinction. Listing parties other than the Dems and the GOP as major parties (at this point in time) would be at odds with WP:UNDUE, while listing any paritcular candidate as "minor" prior to the election would be in violation of WP:FUTURE and WP:NPOV. Let's hope that the majority of the editors of this page take heed.--JayJasper (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Some of the editors of this article have exhibited bias toward certain parties and are suppressing information on other parties. In particular, there has been ongoing disagreement over the info box. Rational Renegade (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's suppressing any information. We're trying to solve a dispute over what should be in the infobox. Timmeh! 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad, editors couldn't wait until November 4th. That way we'd get concrete numbers & could see which candidate truly belongs in the Infobox (and how he/she belonged). GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused why there's disagreement in the first place. The article will be much more informative (and on topic) with all candidates included. I don't normally throw around WP:NPOV, and I wouldn't necessarily use it in this case, but it seems like an encyclopedic entry would naturally have them included. Honestly, we're talking about millions of votes going to "minor" candidates. Uwmad (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous United States presidential election articles don't include 'all candidates'. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole precedent argument is tenuous in my opinion. Most importantly, those are elections that are completed. As an ongoing election, all viable candidates should be included in this page. Not to mention that just because it's precedent doesn't make it correct (see Plessy v. Ferguson). :) Uwmad (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize I sound like a broken record, but I don't find the way the infobox is used on past elections helpful in figuring out how to use it for this ongoing election article. That said, GoodDay's point holds: the other election articles manage to be encyclopedic without including all notable candidates in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is so vague as to give no actual justification for your POV tag. Based on your edits and contributions, your statement is not entirely correct either. I doubt that you are prepared to show any other editor's bias toward any party or candidate. Rather, I think you will argue that the Libertarians are a major party.

In response to you and in other parts of the discussions on this page, editors have set forth various justifications for calling the Democrats and Republicans major parties, but not the Libertarians. You have provided nothing but your bald assertion that it is a major party, that it has automatic ballot access in "some" states, and that you don't like the justifications given by other editors. There is currently a consensus against labeling the Libertarians a major party. To change this, the onus is on you to show that the consensus should change. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. I've often seen the USA described as a 'two-party system' (not three). Furthermore, if the Liberatarian Party were a 'major party'? Then the minor parties would be called Fourth parties (not Third parties). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Would there be a way to move the infobox down on the page? Or perhaps we could split the pictures of the candidates from the infobox itself - it just seems strange to give so much prominence to candidates that aren't really as important as being at the very top of the article implies. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This has mostly been done already. Obama, McCain, and Barr already have pictures in their nomination sections. Adding Baldwin now and the Green candidate when someone has 419 delegates would get us most of the rest of the way there, leaving us to find a place for Nader's picture. Presumably we could put under "Independents", where we could also add a blurb about his past runs to explain why he is a notable independent. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was vague. You'll have to forgive me but I thought it was clear to everyone what the dispute was. To be specific, it is biased to insist on providing prominent positions in the article for candidates that are perceived by some to be 'major'. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was for everyone to contribute information and help ensure it is accurate. Insisting that information be hidden to avoid 'clutter' seems to not be in the spirit of an encyclopedia. It is also biased to categorize the Libertarian Party as a minor party. There are two ways that I know of the term "major party" being used. One is a matter of perception as to which parties matter. This use is non-factual and depends on the audience. The other, more technical use of the term is in election legislation. In that context, it is used to denote the amount of access that a given party has to the ballot. In this sense, the Libertarian Party is and has been a major party in many states for quite some time. I would argue the point for the Green Party or other parties, but I'm not as knowledgeable about those parties and will allow those who are to present that information. As a final thing to consider, a recent poll shows that 67 percent of voters would consider voting for an independent (third party) candidate for president in 2008. That means that the people coming to this site want information about all candidates and don't need us to make assumptions about which ones they are interested in. Thanks for your time! Rational Renegade (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of editors here, prefer Bob Barr excluded from the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think common sense dictates that either all who have an effect on the outcome of the election be included or that no candidates be placed in the infobox at all. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then Bob Barr should be excluded from the top Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that you think that a majority of editors think that Bob Barr should be excluded does not exactly address the issues that he's raised. Do you have a link to the poll showing that 67 percent of voter would consider an independent? That is a very powerful argument indeed. Uwmad (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We won't know anything (concerning election impact) until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First, using state election statutes to define "major" when a far more common understanding is available is silly. Second, how many states use the term "major" the way you say they do? Third, you keep saying "many" states give them automatic ballot access; if this is really just a few out of fifty in a national election (as it undoubtedly is), the rationale completely falls apart. As I said, you are pushing a viewpoint that is not widely held. It is on you to provide reliable, verifiable sources saying that the Libertarians are a major party. That is a separate issue from whether all, some, or any of the notable candidates should be included in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to a poll showing "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President" Uwmad (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there's only 1 Poll that counts; the Election Results in November. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If 2/3 of Americans consider voting for an independent candidate in the upcoming presidential election, an article on the upcoming presidential election should be structured appropriately. Uwmad (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr & Ralph Nader

I see the inclusion/exclusion of Bob Barr edit war? is getting out of hand. It will soon be time for requesting article protection. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Include Ralph Nader in the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ralph Nader should be included in the infobox also. Uwmad (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President"

As part of the ongoing discussion, here is the link to a poll showing "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President". Uwmad (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not promoting the Democrats or Republican, but considering to vote for... isn't very solid. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair to turn this into a game of semantics. "Considering to vote for" means exactly that. And Wikipedia should respond accordingly. Uwmad (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That poll is almost a year old. Timmeh! 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not like it's from the 1800s. We're talking about a very recent poll concerning this election. Unless someone can find a more recent poll, this one should be given credence. Uwmad (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Uwmad, July 2007 is NOT recent. Polls can change dramatically over a week's time. If we are going to use polls, we need to use recent ones. Timmeh! 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So only polls less than a week old are valid? As mentioned, the poll DOES give a good indication that American voters are at least interested in third-party candidates (if not willing to vote for them). This is undeniable. Please let us know if you find a poll that was taken within the past seven days. Uwmad (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls are not reliable (thus they're not reliable sources). Let's clear out the Infobox & wait until the November results. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see marketing, government policy, political campaigns, and WP:RS to see why that is a terrible argument. Uwmad (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to avoid making the top of this article into a campaign itself. Nothing can be more NPOV, then excluding all candidates until the November results. Don't ya'll see, this who belongs/who doesn't belong dispute? is becoming disruptive (and we're only in June!). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with polls is in the interpretation. If you want to reference the poll in the article, knock yourself out. If you want it to support some argument about putting people in the infobox, that is ridiculous. This is a snapshot poll that tells us nothing about whether there has been any change in third party support since 2004 or, more importantly, how many people will support third parties. What makes the data's usefulness even more questionable is exactly what it says. Of the people who would consider voting independent, one-third would definitely consider it, and two-thirds would probably maybe consider it. That's "definitely maybe" and "probably maybe": what exactly are we supposed to take from this? -Rrius (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous to highlight a poll of American voters in order to prove that an encyclopedia should contain information that people would be interested in (up to and including mention alongside the "major" party candidates in an infobox)? Hardly sounds ridiculous. The issues are very clear, as many editors who want third parties included have indicated. Also, please don't mince words, that is disingenuous: the poll breaks it down as "probably would consider" (44%) and "definitely would consider" (22%). Uwmad (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, whether people would consider an independent does not tell us much about the chances that an independent will win or even grab an unusually high number of votes. If this was double the number in the last poll, it would have some weight, but alone it is virtually meaningless on this point. If you read my prior contributions, you'll find that I think we should have none of the candidates in the infobox, but that if we do, we should have all the candidates notable enough to dealt with in the article. So I don't agree with your aim, per se; I just think this argument is terrible. -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for this poll to be definitive proof that third-party candidates should be in the infobox. RationalRenegade cited it, and I presented it, as another piece of evidence showing that third-party candidates will have an effect on this election. I guess the purpose of highlighting the poll goes as follows: From the poll, a majority of Americans are interested in third-party candidates in the upcoming election. This is an article on the upcoming election. Two of the main third-party candidates are Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, both of which currently have a combined 10% of the vote. [11] Now if you can concede the fact that the infobox is informative and worthwhile (which I do), then there is reason to include Ralph Nader and Bob Barr in the infobox. Uwmad (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote before more debate.

It's become obvious that not all candidates with enough support to have an impact on the election will be mentioned in the infobox, so I move that no candidate be put in until after the election, and we can then decide the criteria for inclusion. We should put it to a new vote now that there's been more extensive debate. Put your solution, then sign below it, or sign below a solution you agree with, then after we see where the frequent editors of this article stand, we can continue with the debate until we reach a venerable solution. Let's allow for a few days before we close this, hmm? -- Fifty7 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, voting is no substitute for a consensus reached through discussion. I proposed above that we continue to debate this issue, and if we don't reach an agreement within a week, no candidates would be included until after the election. A vote will not solve anything and may cause more problems than it will solve. See WP:POLLS. Again, as I proposed on Tuesday, if we can't solve the issue of who will be in the infobox in one week, we will just remove them altogether until the election. Timmeh! 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like that, I forgot that quickly. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when was there agreement to remove the infobox if no agreement is reached? That hardly seems fair seeing as this is one of the items to vote on. Uwmad (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was agreement on it. I just said I proposed it. But of course you couldn't be bothered to comment on it. Will anyone else agree that if we can't come up with a solution by next Tuesday, that we should just remove the candidates until the election? Timmeh! 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry -- I read it as a fact. I don't think it's appropriate to just remove the infobox if no consensus is reached, largely based on the fact that the action is actually one of the choices. I would suggest putting it up for WP:RfC. Uwmad (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ralph Nader and Bob Barr

1. "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President" speaks for itself. Uwmad (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. ben1111au (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. It's quite likely that Nader's and Barr's candidacies will affect the election, at the very least Barr in Georgia. I would almost argue for adding the Green candidate, once it's decided. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee will all affect the election, it is why they were included in the infobox. -- Fifty7 (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Was this intended as a vote? Rational Renegade (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no number, no vote. My position remains the same: no candidates in the infobox until after the general election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No Candidates In Infobox Until After General Election

1. Fifty7 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Seems to be the most fair and sensible solution, per WP:NPOV and WP:FUTURE.--JayJasper (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
3. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Rrius (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I can see this discussion is going absolutely nowhere. We just need to remove the candidates until the election. Timmeh! 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of standard for inclusion in the infobox

Why not ust include those candidates that are going to be on the ballots in all 50 states. If they are likely to have an impact then they are likely to be on the ballot in every state. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that if we do something like that, we should include all candidates that are on enough ballots to garner 270 electoral votes. Rational Renegade (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful things to consider in November. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not hold off on this until the vote is over. If a consensus emerges in favor of not having this stuff in the infobox, this part of the discussion is no longer needed. If it does not, several us will join in about who should be included. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is in serious need of WP:RfC. Any objections to this? Uwmad (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the RfC to the bottom of the page for the convenience of people just coming to the page. I figured since a lot of the conversation is already separated by unrelated sections, it doesn't matter. If you want, I can reference all the sections about this issue in the RfC section. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect age disparity

Barack Obama and John McCain are slightly less than 25 years apart in age. This is the largest age disparity between the two major party candidates since Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (roughly 22 years apart in age) ran against each other in 1992.

Actually, since the Obama-McCain age disparity is larger, it goes back further, and is the largest age disparity since ___________. Could a knowledgeable person correct this sentence? I'll tag it. Tempshill (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The section ...since Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush... should read ...surpassing Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.... GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fear not; I've fixed the problem. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- I clarified it as presidential candidates; as there was a 29 years gap between the 1904 major party vice presidential candidates (Henry G. Davis & Charles W. Fairbanks). -- GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

Concern over the inclusion of third-party candidates in the infobox as well as the issue of whether or not the infobox should be included at all have been raised. The discussion has been ongoing (see above) and editors are at an impasse. Outside comment would be appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by editors of the article

To clarify, no one is arguing there should not be an infobox. The argument is that pictures of or information about candidates should not be included in the infobox until after the November election. Overall, I have identified five discrete questions:

1. Should any candidates be listed in the infobox.
2. If so, should the infobox only include Obama and McCain?
3. If so, on what basis?
4. If third-party candidates are to be included, should all four be included or only some?
5. If only some, by what measure will we choose which candidates are included in the infobox?

-Rrius (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are great questions that should guide the discussion. Do you want each editor to answer? Uwmad (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)